Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.
Here's this month’s free issue. Like what you read? Go all-in: for just $5-a-month or a discounted $50-a-year, get every scoop and all the spicy intel in your inbox each and every Friday morning. Join the club.
Catherine McKenney, unplugged. Gearing up for an end-of-session sprint. We have a date for the Liberals' next love-in (or not). But before we dig in, the Ford government is forcing the pace on their controversial mining bill.
First in POLICORNER — The Tories are moving to procedurally fast-track Bill 5’s passage.
A late-night notice of motion was filed to pass the legislation with or without committee’s approval. The House is expected to take it up on Monday.
The motion’s text: The bill will go back to clause-by-clause review on Tuesday at 1 p.m. If the bill doesn’t pass by midnight, it’ll automatically be deemed rubber-stamped and sent back to the House. The Speaker must put the committee’s report to a vote right away, without debate, on Wednesday. Once adopted, the bill will go to third reading under a strict one-hour limit.
There’s no room to stall. If a recorded vote is forced (spoiler: it will be), the bells will ring for just 5 minutes instead of the usual 30.
The motion would pre-empt any opposition-led stall tactics. Once the time-allocation motion is cleared, no more amendments can be filed. At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, any amendment not yet moved will be automatically deemed moved. Without debate, all remaining sections and amendments will be put to a vote.
Recall: Thursday’s clause-by-clause ran into a procedural drag-out on Wednesday.
The NDP and Liberals dropped a few dozen amendments of their own to the hot-potato bill, stalling the legislation’s passage. MPPs only managed to plow through about 10 amendments before the clock struck midnight and proceedings were forced to adjourn.
Legislative night owls, like this reporter, weren’t the only ones watching — parents were, too.
Q+A — Catherine McKenney didn’t expect to end up here.
The ex-mayoral wannabe-turned-NDP MPP nearly tossed their hat into the federal ring before landing on a provincial run.
Rooted in their days as a local councillor — a role they say might be “the most important political job” they’ll ever hold — this move was about making an impact. “I was working in the community on the issues I care most about — housing, transit, climate, public space,” they said. “And then it just hit me: those are all provincial issues. Almost instantly, I thought, ’I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially.’”
Fast forward and McKenney — who, in 2022, nearly became Ottawa’s mayor — is now leading the NDP’s charge on one of the biggest files: housing. On election night, they didn’t mince words: “Please know if you are sleeping in a shelter tonight, when I wake up tomorrow, you will be my priority.”
But, but, but: Even for this veteran, Queen’s Park is a different beast — and the learning curve is real.
We caught up with McKenney to talk about life as an MPP, adjusting to party politics, their municipal run, the Tories’ housing strategy, how they’re keeping their feet in the community — and, of course, their loyalty to the egg salad wrap.
Here are the highlights of our conversation:
Well, it’s been one of those late-night weeks, hasn’t it? How has the learning curve been for you?
“Well, you know, in terms of the new job — I mean, I was on city council or worked at the city for, oh my gosh, 25 years. So it’s been a long time since I’ve had to learn a new job. When I arrived as a city councillor, I knew the job better than most — it’s what I had done for years as a staffer. So here I am now, and it’s a completely different experience. Procedurally, it’s very different. And just being part of a party — I’ve never had that before. There are a lot of advantages to it, but it’s a different way of working in the political realm, and it’s taken some getting used to, right?”
What’s been the biggest surprise for you on this job?
“Yeah, you know, maybe what I should say is — it’s what I didn’t anticipate. I probably should have expected it, but I didn’t. There’s really little structure to the procedure for legislation. So again, back to the city — you would set a work plan for a department as a full council, and you knew, at a high level, what reports were coming. A report would land 10 days out from a committee meeting; it would go public and everybody would have it. You’d go to the committee meeting — it was always every second Wednesday. There was a real structure to it. After committee, the report would go to council, where you’d vote on it. It was either pass or fail.
Here, you arrive at the legislature, and sometimes you’re told that day — or maybe 12 hours before — what bills are going to be debated. Today, for example, they just passed a time-allocation motion that essentially pushed through four bills without going to committee. So, it’s that kind of surprise, all the time. You just can’t anticipate what’s coming at you. Again, I probably should have anticipated it — but I didn’t.”
Let’s go back to the election. Joel Harden had decided to run for the federal nomination — something you had also been considering at the time. But ultimately, you chose to pursue the provincial nomination instead. Why?
“You’re right — I was considering a run federally. I’d been asked by several people to think about it. At first, I said no — or not likely, I guess, was my response. I had been in politics as a city councillor for eight years, and I liked the job, but I was also happy to be out of politics and doing the work I was doing at the time. Over time, though, I got closer to going for it. I was actually just a couple of days out from announcing that I was going to run federally. I had a team put together, and we had started organizing around it.
I’ll be honest with you — I was home alone one day, just thinking back to my time on city council, and I found myself reminiscing. It really was great work. And I thought to myself: I don’t know if I’ll ever have as important a political job as being a city councillor. I really felt that. It was such a meaningful experience — working in the community on issues I care deeply about: housing, transportation, climate, the public realm. And then it just hit me — those are all provincial issues. And almost instantly, I thought, you know what? I’m making the wrong decision. I should be running provincially. So I called my team and said, ’Sorry to tell you this, but I’m going to run provincially — not federally.’ And here I am. It was the right decision. I’m really happy where I’ve landed, and I’m grateful for the work I get to do here at the legislature, and with the NDP.”
You ran in a heated, closely watched race — and if I may say, you were considered the front-runner for quite a while. But in the end, you didn’t come out on top. That kind of experience can be tough — a lot of politicians, after a loss like that, tend to take a step back and say, “I need a break from politics.” How did that experience shape you? What impact did it have on how you approached running later?
“I’ll be honest with you. I know the polls showed I was ahead, but in a one-on-one race in a city like Ottawa — and that’s essentially what it became — there wasn’t much chance for me to win. I always knew I needed a strong third candidate to pull some of the vote. And if you look back, my polling numbers never really went down — what happened is, as undecided voters made their decisions, they moved over to Mayor Sutcliffe. When I decided to run for mayor, we really thought there would be three or four other strong candidates. I thought I might be able to come up the middle. But then the convoy happened, and I think that changed everything. A lot of colleagues who were seriously considering a run were turned off of politics entirely at that point. It was a very, very difficult time for the city.
So for me, the mayoral run — I had no regrets. I thought it was a great campaign, we put forward an amazing platform, and it was a good race. Somebody has to come in second — and that was me. I walked away from it without any hard feelings. Like I’ve always said: whatever the voters want, that’s what should happen. I did step away from politics, not necessarily because I wanted a break, but because I thought I’d done my part and it was time to do something else. But, well — I was talked out of that two and a bit years later.”
You mentioned earlier some of the big differences between the provincial and municipal levels — but beyond that, anything else you’ve noticed?
“Well, you know, municipally, you’re very independent. You make your own decisions, and you have to live with them — but you’re on your own. You don’t have the support of a party, you don’t have anyone helping with research or background — everything’s up to you. And honestly, almost every day, you’re starting from scratch. Here, it’s different. You have to collaborate more, but you also have support — from party staff, from your colleagues. And yeah, I’m enjoying it, certainly, but it’s an adjustment. It’s different.”
When we met, you’d mentioned something that stuck with me: one of the challenges has been not being in the community — having to be in Toronto so much. The connection to the community isn’t really there. How do you work around that?
“Well, it is very different for me — because, like I said, my initiation into politics was at a very community-based level. City council — especially downtown — you’re in your community constantly. I mostly walked or cycled everywhere. You can’t really do that here in Toronto. It’s hard to even get out of this building some days. So that part took some adjustment. I’m in Toronto four days out of five. But when I’m back on Fridays, my schedule is packed with community events. My weekends are all about being present in the community — and I have to say, I get a lot of energy from that. It really fills me with everything I need to come back here and do the work.”
Let’s talk about your housing portfolio. Did you ask for it?
“Yeah, I did. I did. We were all asked, ’What would you like?’ and I did ask for housing. I would’ve taken anything, but —”
Why housing, though?
“Oh, I’m passionate about housing, and I believe I understand it. I understand the complexities of the system, and I truly believe we can end chronic homelessness. I believe we can provide affordable housing for everyone. When I ran for mayor, I had a solid plan to end chronic homelessness in the city within four years. And I firmly believe I would have been successful at that.
So, when I look at the provincial government’s failings, they’re just so obvious. You cannot end encampments without investing in supportive housing. You have to invest in both operating dollars and capital dollars. That’s how you pull people out of encampments. We’re seeing it in Manitoba — their government is systematically ending encampments, but they’re doing it by actually housing people. Either through a Housing First model, which is more scattered housing, or through supportive housing, which is more centralized and comes with services. Both models have supports. You cannot create truly, deeply affordable housing for people who need it — those at risk of falling into homelessness, in shelters, or just in need of stable housing — without building publicly-funded housing. Whether it’s through community housing organizations or co-ops, that’s where your affordability comes from. The market can take care of itself through supply. You’ve got to stop people from falling into homelessness through things like no rent control, vacancy control, tenant protections. You have to build affordable housing for people so that there’s an option; when they need it, they have an option to move in. And if you’re chronically homeless or have mental health or addiction, you have supportive housing.”
I presume it’s local for you, too.
“Absolutely, it is. Absolutely. Back in 2019, when I was on city council, I met a man in the lobby of City Hall, and I got chatting with him. He was in the lobby every day, keeping warm. So I said to him, you know, ’Where do you stay at night?’ And he said, ’Well, I sleep outside.’
At that time, we didn’t really hear about encampments — like, you knew some people slept rough, as we used to call it, but that was about it. I ended up talking to him almost daily. And one day he said to me: ’There are about 40 people in the downtown area who sleep outside every night.’ I was surprised by that number. I thought: ’No, that’s a lot of people sleeping outside.’ He actually took me one night — I asked him to — because he said: ’There are certain spots where you’re allowed to sleep. They won’t bother you. You can go after dark, but you have to leave before sunrise.’ These were very specific spots — certain grates, certain sidewalks, under certain bridges. It was like they were being sanctioned, in a way. Anyway, I think he ended up moving back to where his family was. But fast forward to 2021, and that number was over 200. Fast forward to today, and it’s 300. It’s growing in leaps and bounds.”
So, Bill 6 doesn’t cut it for you.
“Yeah, no. It’s pretty egregious.”
Go on.
“Well, instead of building housing for people — if you look at the budget bill — they’re building hundreds of jail beds. Instead of housing people out of encampments, they’re threatening them with fines of up to $10,000. And once that happens, any shot at a normal life is gone. They’ll never get housing. Then they get jailed — and now they have a record on top of everything else. I just don’t understand how anyone could think that’s a solution to encampments. People will get out of jail — and then what? They’ll be back in a tent somewhere. It’s so much more expensive than just providing housing.”
Does it make it tough that there are no PC MPPs representing the Ottawa area — that it’s only NDP and Liberal seats right now?
“Yeah, there’s only one PC MPP in the area, and that’s in a rural riding. I know George [Darouze] — but that’s not really an issue in places like Carleton or Osgoode. So yeah, it does make things more difficult. That said, I know that any success I have here will come from the relationships I build. And I will build them — absolutely. I intend to. When I was on council, I worked — maybe not closely, but cooperatively — with a lot of councillors who you’d consider right-of-centre or conservative. We got along well. I’ve never held onto strict partisan cues in that way. I did it then, and I understand that we can find common ground. And I hope to do that here as well.”
How has that been — building those relationships and maintaining a sense of cordiality in the chamber, overall?
“Well, it’s still new, right? It’s only been a few weeks, so I haven’t built a lot of those relationships yet. But I did have a good chat the other day — I was at VIA with Steve Clark while we waited for a delayed train. We had a great conversation, talked about people we know in common. And after that, we’re now able to chat in the chamber.
I know George, I know a few of them. And when we arrived, we were all onboarded together. I think that’s really good — because you remember who you arrived with.”
Tell me about Question Period.
“Oh, I love it. It’s all theatrical. But you know, I find it amusing at times, and frustrating at other times. You really have to know what to sift through, what’s important, what’s not, and how to actually get your message across — especially outside the legislature. If everything just stays inside this building, it’s hard. But I think, for example, Marit’s done a great job getting our message out — on the budget bill, on Bill 5. Getting that out there, where people know you’re fighting for what they care about. Question Period has its uses, for sure. But yeah, it is quite the theater. I think I would’ve liked to heckle the mayor back in the day. Just a little bit.”
One last, totally important question: how’s the food situation around here?
“Yeah, the food itself isn’t badly priced for what you get, right? I’m a lazy eater. Unless my wife is cooking for me, I’m such a lazy eater. I’ll find one thing and just stick with it. And for me, it’s the egg salad wrap. Every time I go down there, I tell myself: ’Do something different.’ And then I get down there and get the egg salad wrap. Every time.”
This Q+A was lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Just one week to go ’til summer recess. No word on next week’s agenda.
Call it crunch time: While the House won’t return until September, there’s still a ton on the government’s to-do list. The Tories have allowed proceedings to go as late as midnight to clear the agenda (Bill 9 and Bill 17 were up for debate this week). That late-night marathon is expected to continue next week.
— The government cleared a motion to fast-track Bill 24, Bill 10, the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act; Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act; and Bill 13, the Primary Care Act.
All four will skip ahead to third reading without more debate or amendment.
We checked in with the Government House Leader’s team on whether priority bills will pass before Thursday. No response. Steve Clark, though, told reporters he’s “confident” that he could “use the existing calendar to drive the agenda before the end of next week.”
— Sir John A. is back: The Board of Internal Economy voted to re-display the Sir John A. MacDonald bust “as soon as cleaning is completed.” A motion, tabled by Paul Calandra and seconded by John Fraser, passed two weeks ago.
— The board green-lit a one-time spend of $263,500 for this year’s Canada Day festivities at Queen’s Park.
A $248,000 salary line for Speaker Donna Skelly’s team — including ex-PC MPP Christine Hogarth, her executive assistant — was also cleared. Read up.
— Speaking of wages: Sixteen years later, the salary freeze for MPPs is kaput. The Ford government tabled a bill hiking MPPs’ base pay to $157,450 — a $40,800 raise — and bringing back a pension plan. The bill passed yesterday with all party-backing.
The new pay grid:
“People forget that Mike Harris lied to the MPPs when he took the pension away in 1995,” texted one Conservative source. “They will all tell you, to a one, that they were promised their salaries would be tied to federal MPs. Then that just never happened.”
“No other public servant has gone 16+ years without a raise,” they added. “We tried to limit the public service to one percent-per-year for three years — two of which were a pandemic, and it was treated as though we declared war on the public service.”
From Global News: “... MPPs quietly griped to Global News before the last election that the issue had been front and centre for more than 20 PC caucus members who had weighed whether to run in the next provincial election without guarantees that salaries and pensions would be addressed.”
So, at Queen’s Park: “Everyone’s jumping for joy,” a second Conservative source put it.
Keep in mind: With the salary bump in place, most PC MPPs are in for a serious raise — a result of Ford’s pre-wage boost strategy of mass-appointing parliamentary assistants.
— Hoekstra’s here: The United States’ representative in Canada will speak about the cross-border relationship at the Empire Club on Tuesday. Get a ticket.
— Bill 25, Emergency Management Modernization Act — Re-introduced by Jill Dunlop, the bill would turn Emergency Management Ontario into the “one window” for coordinating emergency management and resources. It would also spell out the procedure for municipalities to declare emergencies and request provincial assistance.
— Bill 26, Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act — The bill, tabled by Andrew Dowie, would add two new classes of provincial parks, urban and adventure, to promote activities like rock climbing, tree-top trekking and mountain biking.
— Bill 27, Resource Management and Safety Act — The bill, tabled by Mike Harris, would toughen the response to wildfires and dangerous oil and gas sites.
— Bill 28, Homelessness Ends with Housing Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Lee Fairclough and Aislinn Clancy, would obligate the government to “design, implement and maintain” a strategy to end chronic homelessness within a decade.
— Bill 29, Turn Down the Heat Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would proclaim the first week of June as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It would also require the government to beef up heat-risk awareness, including publishing information online and distributing it with property tax bills.
— Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act — Tabled by David Piccini, it’s a suite of 18 new labour-related items.
— Bill 31, Marriage Amendment Act — The bill, co-sponsored by Dave Smith and Matthew Rae, would allow MPPs to officiate weddings with ministerial sign-off. That perk would last for a 12-month period post-tenure.
— Bill 32, Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Amendment Act — Introduced by Mary Margaret-McMahon, the bill would regulate how blue box materials are collected. It would set up a province-wide beverage container deposit program. Empties would be collected at grocery stores and The Beer Store.
— Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act — Tabled by Paul Calandra, the bill would ease the province’s ability to easily take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
Unions aren’t happy. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation said the Tories are “more concerned about writing legislation to give themselves more power over school boards.” The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario called it “authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability.”
— Bill 34, MPP Pension and Compensation Act — Call it the crowd-pleaser: Peter Bethlenfalvy’s bill to hike MPPs’ salaries.
— Bill 35, Captive Wildlife Protection Act — Lucille Collard and Karen McCrimmon’s bill would create a licensing scheme to operate zoos.
— Bill 36, Heat Stress Act — Re-introduced by Peter Tabuns, Chandra Pasma, Lise Vaugeois and Jamie West, the bill would force the government to roll out a heat protection standard for workers — and make sure they’re trained for it.
— Bill 37, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act — Yet another bill by Mary Margaret-McMahon. This one would proclaim the fourth week of March as Flooding Awareness Week. Like heat-risk, it would require the government to publish flooding information online and distribute it with property tax bills.
— Bill 34 is now law. It cleared third reading and got royal assent. Bill 18, rubber-stamping spending from the past year, was also signed.
— Bill 9 is heading to Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.
— Bill 2 and Bill 11 have been ordered for third reading.
— SCOOP — The question of Bonnie Crombie’s leadership will be put to the test September 12 to 14 in Toronto.
That’s when card-carrying Liberals will gather at the Sheraton Centre for their annual general meeting. As we reported earlier, those in the Liberal leader’s orbit insist she’ll be able to hold on — and are framing what a “win” would look like.
— The Ford government will “develop regulations to create new ’Indigenous-led economic zones’” as part of Bill 5.
“This amendment creating a new category of zone is at the request of some First Nations who, like us, want to build projects that will unlock economic prosperity for generations,” said spokesperson Hannah Jensen. “It has never been more important to work together — and we want to get this right…”
The bill, which would fast-track mining approvals through the creation of rules-free special economic zones, has earned no love from Indigenous leaders, advocacy groups and opponents alike.
These last-minute changes are not good enough, First Nations chiefs say.
— Mississauga’s mayor is pitching a city-run police service.
An 11-page report shared with the Ford government requested the province overhaul the funding formula based on population and need — or greenlight two standalone, city-run police forces. “... Mississauga — where crime and call volumes are demonstrably lower — is subsidizing a policing model that no longer reflects reality on the ground,” it read. The Star was first to report.
But councillors were in the dark on Parrish’s push. None were briefed on the report — most found out about it on Sunday and, as of now, still haven’t been given a copy.
So, where does council land on the policing push? We asked.
“It’s not my first choice,” said Dipika Damerla, who placed third to Parrish in last year’s mayoral race. “That said, we have a big problem. Mississauga and Brampton have the same population, but we’re paying 62 per cent to Brampton’s 38 per cent.”
“What are we fighting for? I’m fighting to reduce the tax burden on Mississauga. The only question is for whatever solution is being proposed: does it reduce the tax burden? If it does, of course we should embrace it. If it doesn’t, it’ll make no sense.”
“I’m very skeptical,” added Joe Horneck. ”A recent example in Surrey is a worrying precedent as the process took 6 years and now, the city owes the province $250 million in compensation and an incumbent mayor was defeated.”
“I think it is vital to our residents that they receive value for their tax dollars,” said Natalie Hart, “and that includes essential services like our police department.” “It remains a great disservice to Malton that we have only a tiny community station, something that might be easier to manage within the city itself.”
“If we have to be so bold, why wouldn’t we consider that? I would,” John Kovac added. “We have to do what’s best for our residents — and all things should be considered, even if they appear on the surface to be uncomfortable.”
We put the same question to the rest of the council — Stephen Dasko, Alvin Tedjo, Chris Fonseca, Matt Mahoney, Martin Reid, Sue McFadden and Brad Butt — but didn’t hear back.
Word from the Solicitor General: “Peel Regional Police will continue to serve the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga,” a spokesperson said. “The appropriate place for discussions on any re-evaluation of the funding model or cost-sharing structure should be had at the regional level between these two municipalities.”
Also in the report: Mississauga is asking the province to chip in more for the new Peter Gilgan Hospital. On Thursday, council voted to cut the municipal share of hospital funding by $60 million, down to $390 million.
(Parrish said the hospital’s stronger-than-expected fundraising haul, not any top-up from the province, made the cut feasible).
Meanwhile: Parrish, with Kovac and Mahoney, sat down with Ford, his chief Pat Sackville and several cabinet ministers last month.
— Speaking of Mississauga, councillors are now banned from using their title or social media to plug candidates in any election — municipal, provincial or federal. (In February, four endorsed ex-mayor Bonnie Crombie).
— Up in Orillia, the mayor is in the hot seat for how he’s wielded strong mayor powers.
Don McIsaac was granted temporary strong mayor powers to steer his city through a post-ice storm cleanup. Instead, he abruptly ousted Trevor Lee, the city’s new CAO. “As with any power a mayor has, you use it in the best interest of the city,” he said in April.
Council pushed back, urging the province to yank the powers. Two days later, the government did the opposite, making them permanent in 170 municipalities. Some are calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”
— SCOOP — With 170 cities now in the club, the province is hosting a how-to webinar on rolling out strong mayor powers. One session ran yesterday; another is scheduled for next week.
According to the invite: “This event features presenters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Local Government Division and Municipal and Housing Operations Division.”
— Breaking ranks: A PC MPP is speaking out over the government’s move to scrap an environmental assessment for a dump site expansion in his riding. In a video posted to Facebook, Steve Pinsonneault said “people are angry” about the Dresden dump “and quite frankly, so am I.”
“It’s an issue I’ve been silent about for far too long,” he said. “As a municipal councillor, I openly and publicly spoke against it. As a candidate for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, I said I would work to get an environmental assessment in place and I did that. As you can understand, I’m very frustrated.”
Meanwhile, as The Trillium reported, there’s cautious buy-in from others in the caucus.
— Tracking the measles: Public Health Ontario is reporting 93 new cases — bringing the total to 1,888 since the fall.
— Toronto is still in the dark on whether the taxpayer-funded Ontario Place parking lot will land at the Ex.
— Eleventh-hour tweaks to the bubble zone bylaw seem to contradict legal advice on how to shield it from a Charter challenge.
— A bipartisan bloc of American senators were in Ottawa for a so-called “reassurance tour” — but Andrew Desiderio writes the symbolism is doing more work than the Senate ever will to constrain Donald Trump.
— The Ford government quietly shelved a proposal to ban the desecration of the flag.
— Tucked into the omnibus justice bill was a clause that could let more special constables carry guns.
— The Ford government called the Toronto District School Board’s swimming program a “deviation” from the board’s mandate. They planned to cut it — then got called out for it.
— Doug Ford is walking and talking his way into a confrontation with Indigenous groups, Martin Regg Cohn says.
— The Ford government is arming itself with more powers to take over school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
— Canada is at risk of losing measles elimination status.
— Randall Denley says Bill 5 would break the status quo, so it’s about time for it.
— Alexi White argues Ford isn’t really a big-spending politician.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. Are you Stephen Lecce? A First Nations leader? Got a take to throw in on Bill 5? Got a go-to meal from the basement? I’m all ears— and I’ll keep you anonymous, just like the mysterious sources you’re still curious about. We’re back in your inbox next week.
Have a brand or message? Looking to grab the attention of the province’s top and most powerful political players? Ad space is available — reach out for our rate card.